[hey, again - exploratory stuff. feedback appreciated]
The distinction that we sometimes
observe in English between ‘corporate’ and ‘individual’ worship is actually a
false one, since worship of the triune God by definition brings the individual
believer into communion with others. There is no non-church, non-corporate worship.
And, while it is important to note the emphasis in the New Testament on all of
life as worship (as in the Old), it is also the case that that worshipful life,
indicative of membership in Christ, is therefore indicative of membership of
Christ’s body. Romans 12:1 is a key text here, often used to argue that the New
Testament emphasis is on individual acts as worship and not what is done in the
church gathering:
I
appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to
present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is
your spiritual worship.
We should notice right away that
there is the use of sacrificial language to describe the activity of believers.
Of course, we read this after Paul’s emphatic description of Jesus’ atoning
sacrifice in Romans 3:21-31: there can be no sense in which this sacrifice
plays the role of establishing relationship with God. But here, a sacrifice of
the believers’ bodies is envisaged which is now in fact pleasing to God – something
made possible by Christ’s atoning sacrifice.[1]
And this ‘is your spiritual worship’. Almost all English translations deploy
the English word ‘worship’ to translate, not proskuneo, but latreian. That is, the
word for service rather than homage is here used. Since only one of the
concepts usually contained under the linguistic domain of ‘worship’ is here
being used, it seems a stretch to build an entire theology of Christian worship
on the basis of this verse. Nevertheless, the verse is using cultic language to
talk about behaviour rather than ritual activity in a way that echoes Hosea
6:6: ‘For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God
rather than burnt offerings.’ The language of cultic service/worship is now
used to describe Christ’s work, and secondarily the mutual and sacrificial
service of Christians for one another. There is no Christian form of the cult.
But we
should also note how richly ecclesial Paul’s exposition of his command is here,
following as it does from his extraordinary account of the people of God in
Romans 9-11. The pronouns in 12:1 are plural: the ‘spiritual act of worship’ is
‘yours’ in the sense that it is collectively the worshipful act of the entire community.
The rest of chapter 12 moves on to an exploration of the unity-in-distinction
of the body of Christ:
For as in one body we have many members, and not all the
members have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ,
and individually we are members one of another. (Rom
12:4-5)
The body
motif is foundational to Paul’s Trinitarian ecclesiology, and he repeats it in
1 Corinthians 12. The unity of the church is not simply a mirror of the divine
unity, but comes about through the enfolding of the members of the church into
Christ by the Spirit of God. The worship of this people – which is an echo of,
but not a replacement for, Christ’s worship of the Father – includes their
costly and forgiving love of one another. It
is entirely appropriate, therefore, to call the gathering of the people of God
‘worship’, since the earthly gathering of a congregation gives expression to
the identity they have already received in Christ and since in their meeting
together they anticipate the final, heavenly gathering in which the triune God
is adored forevermore. In Christ, God’s people meet together to meet with him:
to adore him; to revere him; and to serve him as they give themselves in mutual
service of one another in anticipation of the final gathering in of God’s
people. This eschatological theme is borne out in the depictions of heavenly
worship in the book of Revelation (Rev 4, 5) and in Hebrews 12:
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal
gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and
to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and
to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that
speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:22-24)
The work of
the Holy Spirit in the church is to point to this final consummation, as a ‘first
installment’ (2 Cor 1:21-22).
5 comments:
Thanks Michael.
I find it hard to understand what you're trying to say by your first two sentences.
Just because our coming to God brings us into fellowship with others, this does not mean that we can't distinguish between times when we are gathered together and times when we are not. If you want to think of praise as worship (which I don't), then surely it is not 'false' to distinguish times when I praise God alone and when I praise God in the company of fellow believers?
And surely the reason for the plural pronouns in Rom 12:1-2 is simply because he's writing to more than one person.
However, I don't want to argue "that the New Testament emphasis is on individual acts as worship", but I do see Rom 12:1-2 (as an introduction to all of Rom 12-14 and not just 12:3-8) and Hebrews 12:28 (as an introduction to Heb 13) as calling Christians to live our whole lives for God, and in practical terms most of our lives will be lived out there in the world when we are not gathered together.
I'm not sure that the NT uses of proskuneo and latreian can be contrasted as much as you suggest. Different authors have their preferences in the use of these words. John's clear favourite is proskuneo, even when referring to the temple cult (John 4:20), whereas Paul clearly prefers the latr... words.
(btw, your "Almost all English ..." sentence could be misunderstood if readers didn't understand that you meant just here in this verse.)
I don't want to "build an entire theology of Christian worship on the basis of [one] verse" - but I do appeal to any who want to build a theology of 'worship' to start with a careful analysis of how the Bible uses the various worship words. I appreciate that at many points you are trying to do this.
Thanks for commending "Paul’s emphatic description of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice in Romans 3:21-31: there can be no sense in which this sacrifice plays the role of establishing relationship with God." Sadly, many today, both Catholic and charismatic, who refer to church activity as 'worship' and thereby promote the idea that this activity does establish relationship with God.
In part: the point is that they aren't necessarily 'worship' words... the problem is that in English, the word 'worship' means 'pay homage to'. It's an expressive word. Stretching it to include other concepts and at the same time removing the 'pay homage to' notion simply won't do as a piece of English.
I think the last sentence is telling because this is why all this effort has gone in to changing what the English word means. But refering to church activity as worship doesn't necessarily have the effect you are saying it does, if the theology of worship is explained. AND a great deal is lost by not refering to church activity is worship - namely, the idea that we are actually ...well, worshipping God when we meet, which... it turns out we are!
If I understand you correctly, Michael, you're saying that the English word includes "pay homage to", and so we should refer to church activity as worship because in church we pay homage to God.
I don't think I'm trying to "[change] what the English word means". Rather, at this point I'm proposing that, because we recognise some bits of what the English word includes, we don't use it in some contexts (church). But you're saying (if I understand you correctly) that because of other parts of what the English word includes, we must use it in those contexts. If that is understanding the situation well, then our different answers may be more a reflection of our cultural backgrounds and experiences than of our Bible reading.
(There may be ways of speaking open to both of us that ameliorate the problem: we could use the 'w' word but keep saying that we not doing ritual to open the way to God; or we could not use the word, but keep saying that we are paying homage to God.)
(By the way, can you explain please what we do in church that is in your "pay homage to" but is not in 'praise'. But please don't use 'worship' in your answer.
However, here are three further concerns:
1. Many modern Bible readers are not aware of the discrepancy between how our Bibles use the word and how we use the word, and so they think (incorrectly) that when they see the word 'worship' in the NT, it is talking about church.
2. I suggest that a very similar argument to what you're advancing about the modern use of the English word 'worship' for church could be advanced for using the modern English word 'priest' of us pastors. Certainly the range of meaning of the modern English word 'priest' now includes the meaning of "church minister", and indeed the derivation of the word is honourable. But why do I avoid using the word of myself and of fellow pastors? Not because I'm denying or wanting to change the meaning of the modern English word, but because of the unhelpful dynamics that operate if people think of me as a 'priest' and at the same time read that word in numerous contexts in their Bibles.
3. As well as considering carefully what the Bible authors teach about 'worship', and how they use the word, we must also hear what they consciously teach, and don't teach, about why we gather. To understand what our gatherings are about, we can look at purpose, and ingredients.
The NT texts that most clearly address the purposes of Christian gathering (e.g. Heb 10 and 1 Cor 14) suggest that edification should be the primary purpose. Certainly the NT never tells us that the purpose of our gatherings is 'worship'. Is there any NT text which supports the view that "paying homage to God" is be *the purpose* of Christian gathering?
What about ingredients? Texts that most clearly indicate what they were doing when gathered include such activities as "teaching, fellowship, breaking bread, prayer, singing, addressing one another, praising God".
It is unhelpful and misleading to refer to the whole by one of the constituent parts.
Our Bibles tell us that prayer is part of our gathering, but that doesn't mean we refer to church as prayer. Our gatherings include teaching (for the moment I'll run with Acts 2 and leave John Dickson aside), but that does not justify referring to church as teaching. So, I would suggest, even if you believe that the NT tells us that church should include "paying homage to God", that would not justify referring to church (as a whole) as 'worship'.
This is why we need systematic theology. As you point out, very little is actually said directly about church meetings and their purposes in any case in the text. But our whole theology of church ought to give us confidence that the gathering is the gathering of the worshipping community of God's people. I don't say that is the purpose of gathering - it is simply the identity of the people so gathered!
I am happy with your amelioration suggestions (though I don't see what's wrong with ritual per se, just ritual in the sense of false worship).
I don't think the priest analogy holds. Very different English connotations.
I think the concern about misunderstanding is exaggerated. As I said in another post - it is trying to correct a wrong theology of worship by changing the definition of the English word ... but, it doesn't really work.
I'll say more later. Thanks for engaging.
Post a Comment